Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 27, 2014 2:30am-3:01am PST

2:30 am
minutes. >> jose as may we have the screen on and leave it on for the duration of 5 minutes. >> good evening commissioner president wu and members of the commission i'm joe butler an architect since march our team has their family room are set back from the common property line downhill and to the north of the sponsor the 311 plans property to extend a green house edition on the property line i advised them to read the
2:31 am
residential guidelines he quote to me the residential guidelines address the common guidelines of residential design all permits must imply with the residential design guidelines and they having must comply with the principle one principle says place the this on the site to respond to the topographic i didn't those quotations suggested to him that the microphone might negotiate an young and old model we presented our they have in issue with the design in spite of wavrn the sponsors the lot exceeding 20 percent that might require additional environmental review our 3-d model graefg utilizes
2:32 am
the center image of the forms of envelopes the existing at the top and the permit application at the bottom and our compromise in the middle it casts shadows into the cigarette butt as you can see from our exits the envelope is the same square feet and accomplishes the same program as their preapplication plan on loots that looerl step down the hill it should minimize the impact open the downhill principle additional depth against a gasping and have first floor wall not over on the property line looked the first and second floor of the set back understanding windows at our first meeting in june the
2:33 am
sponsors architects prepared a recession that moved the rear edition to the second floor it was a pro tem start it showdown flexibility before i left i ask would we meet again and in july the 3 envelope backing became larger we reached out to the height is association and presented our envelope our envelope flipped the same size first floor and employed a bay window reducing the feet beyond the blue like that the rear walls form a nearly western edge to the middle block open space planning staff use this blue line and evaluates the code
2:34 am
radiation the pink area the second story is on the line but the first floor becomes the first addition break admittedly within the envelope are typically approved because in their no different than a 10 foot fence but it excelling exceeds the lateral sleep the zero lot line placement to my clients yard sponsors brief proposes a return to the envelope it is described as a generous offer to the neighbor finally both sides agree this commission should take discretionary review why? because tyler a offer has not been filed without the dr their
2:35 am
general reiterate goes away when changes would make the best upper design we urge you to take dr and respectfully suggest our compromise envelope be adapted as the site envelope i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you opening for public comment in support of dr (calling names). >> hi, i'm karin and i live two doors from the sponsor house on the downside the - on the design doors down from the sponsor i have a problem with my eye and light i highly be object to the property plan the
2:36 am
sponsors plan to build his basement is on the downhill it's my affordable units they're not going to have set backs if this is approved i'm afraid it is going to set a precedent on a direct impact on my property then 2728 steiner if he wanted to sell his house the new owner can initiate a project that will have a devastation on any life therefore i respectfully request you do not approve that project as simpleminded. >> my son is an architect based on what we told me and according
2:37 am
the san francisco guidelines one has to respect the typography of the site and the surrounding areas it's apparent if the project sponsors precede with the construction that's being as being proposed their violating the san francisco design guidelines best way for sponsor to proceed with the addition to build the addition on the other side of the property on the uphill i've lived with may late husband for 28 years this is a truly neighborly friendly place we have quarterly parties and discussing issues all the neighbors know each other and
2:38 am
respect one another the last thing we want to see is tension with the neighbors as much is a as is neighbor i don't wish to get involved with those kinds of issues but the san francisco residential guidelines should prevail. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> hello, i'm isabel i'm a high school junior and the daughter of the folks all i want to say those neighbors they moved in we were welcoming to them and want them to enjoy their house and the expansion all we are asking to move it over to minimize the impact it has on the neighbors that's it the only reason so we can keep as karina said before
2:39 am
keep the relationship we had before that's my one request thank you. >> is there any additional public comment seeing h seeing none, project sponsor your team has 5 minutes. >> hello, i'm david i'm here on behavior on behalf of brian who are the project sponsors and want to point out that the dr requester has not notified that i extraordinarily facts and circumstances after 5 meetings with the neighbors some compromises were made changes to the project to try to accommodate some of the concerns but some were not able to be and the moving the project to the other side was considered but the problem is that on the folks
2:40 am
property 3 and a half years ago they had to do a considerable seismic foundation upgrade to the side on the north where this work is being proposed not such a foundation on the seismic foundation it will cost a considerable amount of money we're looking at other things this is a map in our package you'll note that the project sponsors property is the only one that is not extend as far as properties on the other side the dr requester extended to the south further and the other neighbor further down is extended fallout one the
2:41 am
modification was to set back the second floor 2 and a half feet to be in line with the just a minute dr requesters we've stepped back 2 feet you all note the sleep between broadway it is incredibly steep those are huge and you'll see the vegetation it creates shadow than will be coming from the folks home i should also point out that this the study it was done and presented by itself dr requester a truly hypothetical and only considers two buildings it if consider those normal circumstances it didn't consider the context of the building it
2:42 am
on considers two buildings adjacent to each other all the contextual there is only the shadow will be minimal at best i which the studio point out there are other questions to be made there were things going to be added that might have been intruding those have been removed the designer reviewed this and if you would, found it eligible to deny the dr but we've made those improvements i want ask the gentleman to speak for himself. >> thank you commissioners thank you for the opportunity to discuss this this is request i'm proud to be a fourth generation
2:43 am
san franciscan this renovation is going to allow our family to be good members of san francisco as my family i believe has been the core of that dispute with our neighbor is to move the extension to the other side of the yard as mr. syncot said the challenge we purchased the home we made a significant investment in the seismic and foundational work by moving will force us to upgrade much of the investment we want to meet all the important in the city of san francisco we finally made a number of attempts to reach a compromise we met them with 5 times most recently to bring in
2:44 am
the back of the homes awe like that on the is it correct story with his home as well as changes those were rejected i ask for your support many our remodel and deny the request for dr. >> the architects are available for any questions you may have about design. >> thank you is there any public comment? in support of project sponsor okay dr requester you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you, joe butler i'm concern if the gentleman had a problem with the shadow study he would have produced his own he particularly eyed summary shadows when they're most likely to use their deck and yard and
2:45 am
the sun is high enough in the sky the context will not have an effect if i could have the gene in 2011 co-sponsored to the dbi records a foundation was put underneath the north side of the importance i'm sorry the south side of the project sponsors property they've accurately a foundation there were no plans created but the written description of work any concrete foundation to cappa foundation two feet thinning thick as a tow at the bottom to create the four story this is plenty plenty strong to carry is 2 story wood frame structure when we designed and compromise envelope we made
2:46 am
the stair down two feet off the property line go past the foundation i want to show one more thing i'm going to leaving to our hands the 311 drawings shows the back corner the preapplication drawings show that to my client showed a 2 and a half set back from the corner so today or in the brief they've offered back what was the original plan it actually got bigger the slope is exemplary i think you have all you need to make the best inner design decision. >> thank you. >> project sponsor you have two minutes. >> thank you i want to point out that the grade between those two
2:47 am
buildings that was mentioned by the project sponsor is only been measured from the rear yard he didn't mention there's a difference of two feet so the impact of the higher building is really again much less than presented i can show you the additional shadows this is a view of the area this shows the shadows how long how long they're coming from the south and east they're coming from this area they're already blocking that area and again, we are expending out to the same legislated that the adjacent properties all right. are i appreciate our time but no reason to find exemplary and
2:48 am
extraordinary circumstances if you wish the architects are here. >> with that, the public portion is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i visited the site yesterday and got a a chance it was overcast but i would doubt the impact of the property building could have much of a effect only shadows its only 10 feet in height there is an elevations height of another 10 feet the folks homes the backyard section is above even see given the fact the hill is steep the sun will be blocked as it moves across the sky the neighbors behind you yap of two
2:49 am
many times the capitalization of one floor addition will have a significant shadowy understand the project sponsor has agreed and i assume as part of the case report to make 9 second floor even with the dr requesters building mr. lindsey. >> that plan has not been simpleminded. >> we'll have to take dr but i want to say the architect present of yeah. hi dr requesters have talked about the phelps of the building it has no real significant impact either way although they get a little bit of a separation between their yards and the one story addition but there is a structural reason why that is different to do maybe you could
2:50 am
explain that. >> it has to it - nooechlz a steven it has a lot to do with the water that anything rats through the hill it has been augmented when the client bought the building a wall was placed through there but it runs to the year a lot of times there's active waters coming through the garage and goes through a drafrn onto the sidewalk the consideration the dr applicants to place a staircase away from that wall was in response to understanding there is great deaf living space that has to do with the calibration process out
2:51 am
into the yard and up through the house and water that is there we'll have to employ the water drainage mitigates measures and finish inside the wall. >> were there a significant impact you might consider asking that this happened i think the impact is minimal at best we live in a urban environment we're talking about a generated not too much the second floor of the houimpact is in the raider. >> as they exit the building are close to one another approximately 2 feet is correct. >> thank you. i have a couple of others observations clearly as you look at the site this is
2:52 am
the shortest house of any of them that's been pointed out have additions or built larger to begin with extremely deep lot one hundred and 37 feet 6 nechz which is allows this addition to go out a short distance into the backyard but not a an influence on the rear yard open space there's a huge lot in the back i don't really see it only adds 6 hundred plus hundred square feet it's a modest addition the other thing mr. lindsey you mentioned we'll have to take dr to make the second floor and talk about the donor messengers being removed is that part of the plans we have.
2:53 am
>> the doris messengers are still part of the plan ape there's certain donor messengers they're talking about. >> in decision with the neighbors part of the compromises to have them not request dr to have them move the donor messengers as well as bring them back in reline the second floors that's part of the conversation throughout the 5 times we've met with them. >> you're okay the alignment. >> so absolutely. >> the is that you with the doris merry situation and yes. >> commissioner richards. >> help me understand here the distance between the ground
2:54 am
floor i'm sorry the base of the addition how many feet. >> i have a picture if we could turn on the screen it might be in the packet as well i'm sorry that's small. >> you can zoom in. >> we can zoom in? okay. thank you so we're looking at the draw deck open the left-hand side of the skreeven and the section on the right we set a tape measure from deck to deck and approximateed that from the ground where they are deck is to the top of retaining wall where the folks were
2:55 am
>> so an additional 10 or 11 feet from the building. >> correct. >> okay. so and can you tell me what it is like on other side from the yard to the top of the retaining wall. >> do we have that information? >> it's here. >> at the small inside. >> yeah. i can't quote that dimension without inadequacy but it is a little bit taller it's
2:56 am
higher than on the side. >> so the reason i mean it's kind of a neat design our proposing and switching it around the issue with the water and this displacement are interconnected. >> so the patrol they have is the same square footage the same thing. >> well, it gets the same thing on paper but it is quite a poor design in terms of the staircase in the middle of the space and as it turns it's an awkward use of square footage. >> my one concern the wall their face with it should be closer to a retainer wall that's a 5 foot portion of the building but 10 or 15 this concerns me. >> we were thinking that the drawing has not put you much
2:57 am
thought into the landscape by the fence will run along the property and visible cut down the visible wall. >> and the fence is 10 feet high. >> i don't know that hopefully, the neighbors will cowboy talk about that. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm a little bit confused about the many images i see which were pre11 notification and then another version the version in addition to seeing drawings 8 point a-1.1 which indicates compromises, however, with all of the dimensions being talked about this drawing for me didn't quite dpebt the changes that the applicant is suggesting am i correct.
2:58 am
>> this drawings with the pink sections indicates the. >> it shows the location of doris messengers, however, when it comes to the next or to the left of the draushgz i mentioned indicated there sings since you're showing rooflines it is not clear of the lines it is the building facade so i believe somewhat from my prospective there's a piece missing either something we take dr and you forward to the department to take the verbal comments which are being made and the drawing has to be simpleminded that clearly supports that at this
2:59 am
time i see a drawing that doesn't indicate that. >> we officially submitted drawings to david's group that include the pink elements the compromises that were offered in discussion. >> could you refer to the names. >> what is officially filed with the san francisco planning department is this drawing without the pink shaped. >> so mr. lindsey and correct. >> and this exhibit was meant to illustrate the conversation that we had with the dr applicant not meant particularly to you know change the official filing but our client remains happy to change the design. >> excuse me. since the commissioners themselves are not
3:00 am
in the middle of discussions with mr. lindsey i'm confused your repeating what wore memo the same kind of confusion i still i did not know what our supervisor kim to. >> it would be. >> excuse me. >> of course, yes. >> what is what the city. >> what you what was dred and before you as a project what is defected on a-1.1 must the coloring portion. >> it's the big thing. >> yes. the whole thing in the commission wishes to take away the two doris messengers and the 2 1/2 he section of the rear they would the commission needs to take dr to do that. >> i'm asking you the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on